Test

What’s the best way to reach and engage consumers about their personal food waste?

5k participants

Setup

The focus of the test was how brands can most effectively motivate consumers to reduce their food waste. To that end, the two assets were designed to test performance across the following A/B split:

  • AMessaging strategies focused on waste reduction
  • BMessaging strategies focused on money savings

Test Results

Attention Share and Engagement Share reflect the percentage of test-wide scoring accounted for by individual variants or demographics. Read more below in the Methodology section.

Sample Size
Total: 5,011 Gender: Male: 770 Female: 4,166 Age: 18-24: 19 25-34: 110 35-44: 204 45-54: 468 55-64: 1,382 65+: 2,787
Hundreds of Pounds 1,200 Dollars
Attention Share

This measures the likelihood that a message will capture eyeballs in the wild. Read more in the Methodology section below.

50% 50%
Engagement Share

This measures the likelihood that a message will elicit a meaningful reaction from the audience. Read more in the Methodology section below.

56% 44%

Aggregate Insights

The balanced scoring suggests that consumers are comparably motivated by money savings and waste reduction.

An optimal marketing strategy would marry both value props to maximize consumer incentives.

The moderate engagement advantage of the waste-reduction message suggests that consumers may be more passionate about waste reduction than money savings.

Gender-based attention and engagement shares reflect the relative attention or engagement per gender for each variant. Read more below in the Methodology section.

Sample Size
Total: 5,011 Gender: Male: 770 Female: 4,166 Age: 18-24: 19 25-34: 110 35-44: 204 45-54: 468 55-64: 1,382 65+: 2,787
Hundreds of Pounds 1,200 Dollars
Attention Share

This measures the likelihood that a message will capture eyeballs in the wild. Read more in the Methodology section below.

Male
13.8% 28%
Female
30.9% 27.3%
Engagement Share

This measures the likelihood that a message will elicit a meaningful reaction from the audience. Read more in the Methodology section below.

Male
41.6% 17.2%
Female
21.2% 20%

Gender Insights

The male audience paid markedly less attention to the waste-reduction message but engaged with it at a markedly higher rate.

The female audience paid more attention than the male audience overall to both messages but engaged less overall, especially with the waste-reduction message.

Further testing could explore different waste-reduction messaging strategies with the male audience — e.g., a focus on being a less wasteful person vs. specific quantitative goals — in an attempt to break through the attention wall and unlock the engagement potential.

Age-based attention and engagement shares reflect the relative attention or engagement per age bracket for each variant. Read more below in the Methodology section.

Sample Size
Total: 5,011 Gender: Male: 770 Female: 4,166 Age: 18-24: 19 25-34: 110 35-44: 204 45-54: 468 55-64: 1,382 65+: 2,787
Hundreds of Pounds 1,200 Dollars
Attention Share

This measures the likelihood that a message will capture eyeballs in the wild. Read more in the Methodology section below.

18-24
12.7% 0%
25-34
8.6% 5.8%
35-44
8% 3.6%
45-54
7.2% 8%
55-64
11.9% 10.4%
65+
12.1% 11.7%
Engagement Share

This measures the likelihood that a message will elicit a meaningful reaction from the audience. Read more in the Methodology section below.

18-24
10.9% 0%
25-34
40.4% 0%
35-44
12.6% 10.5%
45-54
11.7% 4.7%
55-64
2.5% 2.2%
65+
1.5% 3%

Age Insights

The test population skewed toward participants 55 and older, with the 65+ segment showing an engagement preference for the money-saving message.

With a small sample size, participants under 35 demonstrated a strong attention and engagement preference for the waste-reduction message.

Further testing could explicitly target younger audiences to determine whether the directional data from this sample holds true at scale.

Methodology

This test was conducted with two message variants and a prequalified TCD audience of 5,011 likely adopters. Among those participants, 6.1% paid measurable attention to the test assets and 1% registered measurable engagement. 

Attention Score measures the likelihood that a message will capture eyeballs in the wild. It’s calculated using the rate at which test participants respond to a CTA to learn more about the subject.

Engagement Score measures the likelihood that a message will elicit a meaningful response from the audience. It’s calculated using a proprietary algorithm that weights measurable metrics — shares, saves, likes, etc. — in a way that has proven to be meaningfully correlated (r > .5) to real-world conversion behavior.

Attention Share and Engagement Share reflect the percentage of test-wide scoring accounted for by individual variants or demographics. For example, an engagement share of 25% means the variant or demographic in question accounted for 25% of the cumulative engagement score produced by all segments in the test.

All Tests

19 Total

Test BaldEagle

What motivates consumers to donate money to environmental causes?

Test detail
Test vertmower

What’s the best way to market an electric lawn mower?

Test detail
Test F150vert

What’s the best way to market an electric pickup truck?

Test detail
Test walmartcleanbeauty

What’s the best way to market clean beauty products?

Test detail
Test shakenbake2

What’s the best way to market sustainable packaging changes for familiar products?

Test detail
Test washer

What’s the best way to reach and engage consumers about washing their clothes in cold water?

Test detail
Test chipotletrimmed

What’s the best way to reach and engage consumers around sustainable ingredient changes?

Test detail
Test darkpatagonia

What’s the best way to motivate consumers to recycle their old clothes?

Test detail